Steam put the world in motion. It lit up the night, and tightened humanity’s grasp on the forces of nature. Nature, however, has eluded the human race and has forced civilization to reconsider its power in the most fundamental sense. Scientist, politicians, and citizens now face the heat as they scramble to address a cycle of global warming spawned by the progress of the industrial revolution that threatens to unhinge the fragile balance of Earth’s ecosystems. Reducing carbon emissions has been the answer to the problem. This standard that has taken hold in developed nations has morphed into a global economic crusade against carbon emissions through regulation, taxation and sanctions seeking to curb the emissions of the developing world. Although consumer responsibility and global collaboration in an endeavor to reverse global warming trends are laudable, it is important to recognize the risks these steps pose on global trade, the citizens of developing countries, and the debt developed nations have as beneficiaries of the first fruits of fossil fuels.

The United States owes its status as an economic superpower to the progress of the industrial revolution; a revolution fueled by carbon emitting fossil fuels. The rapid growth of nations such as Unites States reliant on fossil fuels came at price–rising global temperatures. Carbon doesn’t only heat up cold economies, it also has the ability to raise average global temperatures as it gets trapped in the atmosphere and captures solar radiation. These shifts in temperature have precipitated evident changes in the environment. Recent glacial melting, super storms, and inflated and more rapid extinction rates can all be traced to these rising temperatures. In response, the United States and other developed nations have sought alternative fuels to reduce carbon emissions. These measures entail large investments of capital, and higher costs of production–a reality that makes production in underdeveloped nations more cost effective and foreign products cheaper. This reality, coupled with policies and regulations that seek to reduce carbon emissions through taxation and sanctions on developing nations still very dependent on fossil fuels, raises a host of ethical questions–particularly regarding the right and motive a developed nation has in enforcing such measures.

Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Could Shape Bioethics for GenerationsNeil Gorsuch, nominee for the US Supreme Court, has spent his career weighing matters of life and death. His views on life—that it is sacred and “intrinsically valuable”—are likely to shape court decisions in areas from abortion to assisted suicide for decades to come.

Often when a problem is too big or too scary we throw up our hands and announce that “there is nothing we can do” to solveit. Admittedly, climate change feels like one of those problems. It seems like a quagmire of depressing facts and statistics. It is now scientific fact that the polar ice caps are melting, our oceans are rising and becoming more acidic, and if we do not curb our consumption of fossil fuels, our planet will be rendered unlivable. The plethora of disturbing information on climate change is enough to cause anyone to have a sleepless night or make them wish they had never heard the truth about our warming planet. However, ostriches with their heads buried in the sand do not get much done, and once you know some truth, you cannot un-know it. And so the question at hand is not “is climate change happening?” for that question has been answered in the affirmative (although climate change deniers would like to see this issue removed from our national political discourse). The question right now is “what are we going to do about it, if anything?”

Bill McKibben, environmental scientist and founder of350.org, has spent his career writing about climate change and mobilizing communities as an activist for the cause. The mission of his website reads: “We believe in a safe climate and a better future– a just, prosperous, and equitable worldbuilt with the power of ordinary people.” This statement is in no way frightening beyond the scope of comprehension. In fact, it is probably what most people want out of the future. Unfortunately, the direction we are headed in is not conducive to this safe and equal future. In fact, it is quite the opposite. If we continue with our current rate of fossil fuel burning, we could be left with a planet that is ungovernable, uninhabitable and unrecognizable. This is a terrifying thought, but should climate change activists refrain from telling the truth about our planet’s situation?

At one point during the Carnegie Council’s featured video“Global Ethics Forum: Ethics Matter: A Conversation with Bill McKibben,”McKibben was asked about instilling fear in the general public so much so that the sheer magnitude of the problem may compel them not to act. To this, McKibben replied, “reality is what it is, and we should describe it.” In fact, it could be said that experts on ecology, such as environmentalists like McKibben and climate change scientists, have a duty to make this knowledge available to the public.

Presently, we have seen enough “100-year” storms and floods to be convinced of the boundless power and undeniable truth of climate change. Activists and scientists cannot be charged with attempting to use unwarranted scare tactics. However, if they have been guilty of scaring the public into action in the past, is that such a bad thing?

Trump and Pence on science, in their own words
Donald Trump and Mike Pence’s career and campaign track record of false claims about science, rejection of research conclusions and dangerous rhetoric on misconceptions such as vaccines and autism

Today’s society is built and shaped by technology and scientific discovery but, surprisingly, pervading scientific denial lingers. Irrational skepticism and flat-out denial of uncontroversial theories is not just a rebuke of the facts of science and an insult to toiling scientists in their respective fields, but should also be seen as a moral dereliction, capable of great harm if not remedied.

According to recent Gallup polls, two scientific theories in particular – evolution and anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change – struggle to gain widespread national acceptance. In 2014, 42% of Americans said they believe that God created humans in their present form (i.e. evolution never occurred). In the same poll, another 31% said they accept that humans evolved, but under God’s supervision and direction (commonly referred to as intelligent design). Only 19% said they believe the current scientific explanation of the origins of humans—that we evolved like every other organism on earth, through a natural process following biological principles.

Dr. Gregory Kaebnick of the Hastings Center giving a lecture at Fordham University

What exactly is nature? Is nature defined by sprawling man-made public parks at the center of the world’s largest cities, or by vast acres of vegetation in the most remote parts of the Amazon Jungle, supposedly unaltered by human action? Dr. Gregory Kaebnick of the Hastings Center addressed these questions during a Center for Ethics Education lecture in the Special Collections Room of Fordham’s Walsh Library, entitled “Humans in Nature.” Kaebnick utilizes a preservationist approach to environmental ethics in an effort to unwind the complex ethical dilemmas involved in defining the intricacies of the natural world.